Revised Manuscript Click here to download Manuscript Revised Manuscript.docx INTERROGATING THE CONSTRUCTIONS OF “MASCULINIST PROTECTION” AND MILITARISM IN THE SYRIAN CONSTITUTION (1973) AND SYRIAN LAWS Abstract This is a revisionist study of Syrian Ba’athism. At its heart is an examination of ingrained masculinist bias. I argue that there is a reciprocal relationship between militarism and masculinity, achieved through gratifying protection for both the nation and women. While Commented [ra1]: This has been deleted from the previous draft-so re-added most feminist scholarship dealing with states formation in the Arab context attribute its gendered nature to dictatorship, patriarchy and religion there is no debate about the development of states, and their relation to militarism and masculinism. This construction of militarized masculinity in Ba’ath ideology ensures the preservation of gendered laws that perceive women as less equal. While teasing out this aspect, I seek to explore the status of women in the Syrian Constitution (1973) and laws by investigating the role of the state as a male protector in which women’s rights become challenged by the state’s paternalistic perceptions. Introduction Amidst the violence that has spread across Syria since 2011, questions about how women were constructed in the Constitution and Syrian laws prior to the uprising have subsided. This paper aims to contextualize the origin of militarism and masculinism prior to the current war to highlight how masculinized national ideology, coupled with centralized militarism, has maintained and reinforced women’s subordination since the 1970s. I will use Iris Young’s model of “the logic of masculinist protection” as being associated with “ideas of chivalry” (2003: 4). Central to the logic of masculinist protection is the subordinate status of those perceived as in need of protection. By constructing and perpetuating an image of the man as courageous, dominating and active, women are positioned as secondary in a vertical spectrum. I argue that the perpetuation and gratification of the chivalric male model in the Commented [ra2]: Deleted some words 4 Baˈath ideology and depending on militarism in the early formation of the Syrian state correspond to the subordinate status of women in Syrian laws (Nationality Act and Penal Code). Within this context, investigating the subordinate status of women in both state and society takes into consideration that Syrian national identity is being formalized and established by a state that is officially secular. In this context, there is a need to stress that scholarship about constitutions and legislation in Middle Eastern societies has discussed gender bias from various perspectives, mostly in relation to religious patriarchy, tribalism and tradition or in relation to women’s changing social and legal status (Shaˈaban, 1991; Hill, 1997; Maktabi, 2010). More particularly, in the Syrian context, studies conducted on the gender gap have attributed the subordinate position of women to the repressive political climate created by the authoritarian Baˈath regime (Manea, 2011; Meininghaus, 2016) or to the patriarchal values invested in society (van Eijk, 2016). However, such attempts to connect tradition and religion to women’s subordination in the Constitution and laws disregard the role of national ideologies in promoting and maintaining gender inequality in those legal texts. More importantly, contextualizing the historical and political background of legislation in Syria, some scholars argue that current laws were enacted under the French Mandate and are still in force (van Eijk, 2016: 30). The problem with this kind of argument is that, like other feminist studies (van Eijik, 2016; Maktabi, 2010; Manea, 2011), it too disregards the intimate link between Syria’s turbulent history (featuring multiple military coups d’état from 1949 until that of Hafez al-Assad in 1970) and the perpetuation of masculinism in the Constitution and laws. In this paper, I argue that the continuation of the colonial legacy seen in Syrian laws should be attributed to the consolidation of Baˈathist political ideology and a militaristic regime, in which the idealization of the male warrior delineates models of Syrian citizenship. I therefore take a different approach: I argue that masculinism is not an element of explanation but rather one of interpretation—a tool of what is called ideology critique (Harvey, 1983). At the heart of this intellectual interrogation is the conceptualization of the nation as an extension of the family, which perpetuates hierarchies based on gender (see Baron, 2005: 6). When the nation is “envisioned as a family, the concept of family honor could be easily appropriated as the basis of national honor” (Baron, 2005: 7). Such configuration of the nation as a woman is often closely linked with the emphasis on the role of the man as a masculine 5 protector, defending both women and the nation. This connotation between ˈird (honor) and ˈā rd (land/nation) combines notions of militarism and masculinity. However, this conceptualization of the nation as feminine condensed by the authority of not only the man as a masculine protector but also the state, which is prevalent in Syrian legislation. In other words, this feminization is juxtaposed with nationalizing women’s sexuality, and imposing the state’s authority on their bodies by controlling women’s fertility and legalizing violence against them in the name of protecting honor (women’s purity). Nonetheless, this imposition of the logic of masculine protection in Baˈath ideology has planted hierarchy in the legal narratives by perceiving women as in need of male guardians. Moreover, this authority of patriarchal protection enhances the subordination of women and determines their relationship to the state. This is reflected in Syrian nationality law, under which women are prevented from passing their citizenship to their children. I have become convinced that there is a need for a deeper, more sustained and explicitly gendered exploration of the multilayered conceptualizations of militarism and masculinism. Using Young’s conception, this paper looks at the masculine assumptions underpinning the nationalized models propagated in the early emergence of Baˈath ideology, and at how the early formation of the Syrian nation-state centralizes the logic of protection by epitomizing the role of the army in consolidating the newly emerged state. Without understanding the subtle gendering of the 1973 Constitution1 and Syrian laws, we cannot make adequate sense of the persistence of a culture that legitimizes the dominance of violence and militarism today. Although this paper tackles notions of militarism and masculinism before the Syrian war, this investigation of the saliency of martial values since the early emergence of Baˈath ideology in the second half of the 20th century follows the construction of hierarchal gendered identity – making man the ideal citizen. Implicit in the focus of this investigation is the assumption that Baˈathism in Syria has developed as a necessary component of the establishment and consolidation of the nation-state. As an ideology based on the logic of masculine protection, Young argues that the logic of masculinist protection ‘‘includes the image of the selfish aggressor who wishes to invade the lord’s property and sexually conquer his women’’ (2003: 4). This logic is based on dominative masculinity that defines protective masculinity as its other. Such conceptualization of masculine men as protectors therefore entails gratification of fighting and sacrificing for the sake of women and the nation (ibid.). This will be reflected in Baˈathism, which plays a role in inventing national solidarity and in identifying gender roles. Consequently, this paper has two parts. In the first, I will explore the theory of masculinist protection and the role of the state as a male 6 protector. I will then provide an overview of Baˈath ideology and situate it historically by identifying the origins of its basic characteristics through looking into its emergence in the writings of the three Baˈath ideologues between the 1920s and 1960s: Sati al-Husri, Michael Aflaq and Zaki al-Arsuzi. Related to the Baˈath ideology, a section on the early formation of the Baˈath state and its relation to militarism and masculinism aims to provide context for the 7 historical background of the Syrian Constitution and laws. In so doing, the paper moves into the practical establishment of the Baˈathist state since Hafez al-Assad came to power. Such exploration of the early formation of nation-state under the Baˈath regime contextualizes the construction of gendered constitution and laws in relation to the dominant ideology of the Baˈath, and how it has impacted women’s status in the Syrian context. Part II focuses on the 1973 Constitution and Syrian laws, exploring the construction of political identities in the former’s Preamble. I then address the masculinist making of Syrian laws in relation to women, focusing on nationality and penal law to investigate the reflection of militarism and logic of masculinist protection. Positionality As a young woman growing up in Syria, I was initially drawn to the subject of masculinism by its importance in reinforcing the cult of Baˈathism during my primary and secondary education. An example rich in perpetuating masculinist belonging is the compulsory conscription to two Baˈath-affiliated organizations: the Syrian National Organization for Childhood (tala'e'e)